list_notifications

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns delivered, failed, and skipped attempts and supports pagination and filtering. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention rate limits, or describe the response format. The addition of the audit log context provides moderate value beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features (audit log, status types, pagination, filters). No superfluous words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides the core purpose and capabilities but omits details about the response structure, error handling, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool with four parameters, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important context unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all four parameters having descriptions. The description's mention of filtering by event type or since timestamp mirrors the parameter descriptions without adding new semantic details. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists the operator's notification audit log, specifying three types of attempts (delivered, failed, skipped). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notification_preferences (which retrieves preferences) and test_notification (which sends a test).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination and filtering capabilities but does not address scenarios where a different tool (e.g., get_notification_preferences) would be more appropriate. Given the large set of sibling tools, explicit usage guidelines are absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.